Academic Programme Review Report Template
Five documents and four sheets that score what the last review actually changed, then end every finding in a decision somebody owns.
Free download · No account needed
Prior Recommendation Register
What the last review actually moved
One row per recommendation the last review made, quoted in its own words. The wording is the evidence.
| ID | Recommendation as written | Owner | Date | Actioned | Review caused it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-02 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-03 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-04 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-05 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-06 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-07 | — | — | — | — | — |
| R-08 | — | — | — | — | — |
Checks
| Check | What it counts | Value |
|---|---|---|
| CHK-1 | Actioned, and actioned because of the review | — |
| CHK-2 | Actioned where a person and a date were named | — |
| CHK-3 | Actioned where neither was named | — |
| CHK-4 | Recommendations tracing back to no finding | — |
Owner and date are facts about a sentence's grammar, not judgements about its quality, and the grammar turns out to be what predicts the outcome.
Every institutional review outline asks the same thing in its final section: summarise progress against the previous action plan. It asks for it in prose, so almost nobody counts it, and a programme that cannot say what its last review changed is writing the next one blind. The count takes an afternoon. It also decides what kind of document the next six months produce, which is why it belongs at the front rather than in a closing section.
Tellisford University, BS Environmental Science, seven-year cycle. The 2019 review made twelve recommendations and five were carried out, but one of the five was forced by a state reporting rule rather than by the review. So the review moved four of twelve. Four recommendations named a person and a date, and four happened. Seven named neither, and the only one of those that moved is the one the state forced. Twelve recommendations also answered nine findings, so three traced to nothing at all.
The scorecard runs the other join, crossing completions against sections consumed against outcome attainment. One concentration costs 3.33 times the programme's cost per completion and attains at 93.3%, so it ends as a decision referred to the dean rather than a recommendation. NECHE asks an institution for a demonstrable record of using its evaluation results, and federal rules have an agency check whether a programme achieves its stated objectives. One level up, the self-study pack runs the same test against an accreditor's criteria.
What's in the pack
Prior Recommendation Register
Every recommendation the last review made, quoted, scored for owner, date, dated evidence of action, and whether the review caused it.
Enrolment and Completion Trend
Majors at three census points and completions per concentration, so a programme average never stands in for five different trajectories.
Outcome Attainment
Counts rather than percentages, per outcome per concentration, with row sums and column sums that have to agree before anything is read into them.
Resource Analysis
Sections consumed and cost per completion beside attainment, plus the three costed options for the concentration that is expensive and good.
Findings and Recommendations
Nine findings, each ending in a recommendation with an owner and a date, a referred decision, or a recorded no-action with the reason.
Review Report
The document itself, opening on what the last cycle changed rather than on mission, with the concentration table underneath.
Action Plan
The schedule by date with the dependencies named, and the sections still owed to enrolled students under each teach-out option.
Review Presentation
Twelve slides that open on the action rate, run one finding per slide, and close on the decisions being asked for by name and date.
How the Action Rate Is Computed
The four columns, the judgement call on external causes, and why a rate from a cell of four is a reason rather than a forecast.
How to use it
- 1
Open it in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and let the agent score the last review and build the scorecard, or download the nine blank Word and CSV files with no account.
- 2
Send the last review first
Its recommendations, in their own words. The wording is the evidence, and this is the one input that changes what the new document is for.
- 3
Add the numbers by concentration
Enrolment at three census points, completions, sections taught, and outcome results as counts. A programme total hides every decision worth making.
- 4
Give every finding an ending
A recommendation with a person and a date, a decision referred to a named person, or a recorded no-action with the reason. Nothing ends in a description.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download all nine files as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no card. Edit with AI is the optional path, where the agent scores your last review and builds the scorecard from your own numbers. The rest of the packs sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word documents (.docx) for the report, the findings, the action plan, the presentation and the method explainer, and CSV (.csv) for the four sheets, zipped together. They open in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets. In River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.
Our institution mandates its own review template. Does this conflict?
No, and you should follow theirs for structure. Every one of those outlines asks somewhere for progress against the last action plan and none of them says how to measure it. This computes that, plus the concentration scorecard, and you write the answers into whatever shape your provost's office requires.
What if we cannot find the last review?
Record that, because it is a finding in itself, then look for an action plan or a memo from that cycle before giving up. Where the record is genuinely gone, start from the enrolment and outcome data, pulled with the definitions each figure was computed on, and set this cycle up so the next review has something to score.
Is a hundred per cent action rate from four recommendations really meaningful?
On its own, no, and the pack says so in the report rather than burying it. Four, one and seven are the cell sizes and every percentage is published beside its counts. What the record supports is naming owners, not a claim that owners guarantee anything.
Will it tell us which concentration to cut?
No, and a template that does is reading one column. The sheets put cost per completion beside attainment, so a track that is expensive and strong reaches the dean as a costed decision with both numbers in the same sentence. Where a review turns into rebuilding a course, the course design template picks it up.
How does this relate to accreditation or faculty review work?
A programme review answers to your dean, on your institution's cycle. A self-study answers to an accreditor's own criteria; the self-study pack handles that, citing outcome results the outcome assessment pack collects on a rotation. An individual's case for tenure is a third kind; the faculty portfolio pack runs the same discipline at that level.
Find out what your last programme review actually changed
Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open it in River and have the last cycle scored and the scorecard built from your own numbers.
Edit with AI